Talk:FIFA World Rankings

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article candidate FIFA World Rankings is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
June 13, 2006 Peer review Reviewed
June 27, 2006 Featured article candidate Not promoted
Current status: Former featured article candidate
WikiProject Football (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Archived Talk[edit]

Archive up till June 2011

São Tomé e Príncipe and Papua New Guinea[edit]

The article states that one member, São Tomé and Príncipe, is not included in the rankings as they have not played a recognised international fixture since their 8–0 loss against Libya in 2003. The report for this match is located here. São Tomé and Príncipe were excluded in November 2007 on completing four years without a fixture, as rankings take into account only results over the last 4 years.

Papua New Guinea played their most recent game on 13 July 2007 and have no upcoming fixtures scheduled by FIFA, so we might expect that they will be excluded too when the rankings are updated on 27 July this year, and be ready to reflect this in the article.

FIFA refers to  São Tomé and Príncipe as "São Tomé e Príncipe" (in Portuguese), by the way. --Theurgist (talk) 21:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

All-time highest ratings[edit]

The following is a list of national football teams ranked by their highest FIFA score ever reached.

Rank Nation Points Date
1  Spain 1920 17 November 2010
2  Netherlands 1730 9 March 2011
3  Brazil 1672 1 July 2009
4  Italy 1653 13 June 2007
5  Argentina 1616 14 March 2007
6  France 1585 13 June 2007
7  Germany 1490 15 September 2010
8  England 1477 13 September 2006
9  Portugal 1323 13 June 2007
10  Czech Republic 1312 13 September 2006

Why did you delete my table, PeeJay2k3? Why do you think is "unnecessary"? Just because England is 8th??? With your point of view almost everything is "unnecessary". Please, respect the work of the others, you are not the Wikipedia's owner.— Preceding unsigned comment added by User:89.129.13.168 (talkcontribs)

Again PeePeeJay2k3? If you can not understand the encyclopEdic value of this does not mean is worthless, just your brain. There are another "All-time highest ratings" lists in other articles and no "wisdomlessboy" says "what is the encyclopaedic value of this?". Who do you think you are? We try to make, with our job, Wikipedia larger, greater and with more data to consult and a child, who thinks is the Wikipedia's owner, the only thing he does here is delete the people's work. I repeat: "Who do you think you are??". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.203.171.197 (talk) 19:41, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

The table appears to be original research, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. If a table or analysis of highest ranking scores has not been published elsewhere, it cannot be included here, as Wikipedia is a tertiary source. I doubt PeeJay is bothered about England's position; he isn't English. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:42, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

O.O OMG!! PeeJay2k3 has gone running to find someone to think in an excuse to delete it. Is not an opinion. Is not a theoretical interpretation of something! It's a fully verifiable data compilation on FIFA.com. That rule is not applicable here. Where has been published table "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Football_Elo_Ratings#All-time_highest_ratings"? It's the same table. He isn't English, he's British and his favourite team is the ManU... like you. Oh! I see... You two are angry because they lost the UEFA Champions League against Barcelona and now you are trying to find some (invalid) excuse because you hate Spain. Because I can't understand why you two are trying to delete it with nonsense excuses.

Please read the linked policy page, particularly the section headed "Synthesis of published material that advances a position". I can't help but raise a smile at your accusation of a pro-Manchester United bias on my part, as nothing could be further from the truth. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Pfffff You have no clue about Wikipedia's rules! This table advance a position??? This is not an opinion! This is not a theoretical interpretation of something! You are who must read it (Once and again and again and again... until you understand it) Is there anyone enough smart here? Tell me... how old are you? Ah! And there are something further from the truth: Your excuses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.203.171.197 (talk) 21:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Discouraging friendly matches?[edit]

I could be mistaken, but doesn't the current system quite heavily discourage friendly matches? For example, if a team plays 10 world cup qualifying matches in a year and wins 5 of them, they might get 500 points for that year (1000 for each win averaged [example numbers] times 5, divided by total matches). However, let's say another team also plays 10 world cup qualifying matches, winning 5, but additionally plays 10 friendly matches, also winning 5 of those. In that case they might get (5*1000+5*500)/20=375 points. The straight forward solution would be to instead of using multipliers simply do a weighted average, meaning instead of dividing by total matches you divide by the total "importance rating" for all games. Considering they did "research" to come up with this new method I cannot believe they overlooked something so simple, so maybe the description is wrong rather than the method. MatsT (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Only discourages friendlies if the teams' management and associations prioritise ranking above revenue and match practice. But this is a talk page about constructing the article, not a forum for discussing the pros and cons of the rankings system, so this should be dropped. Kevin McE (talk) 23:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
As the ranking is used for things such as seeding into qualifier groups, it's definitely not trivial, but I agree I should take that issue elsewhere if the current description is correct. MatsT (talk) 03:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Ranking Shootout two-leg ties[edit]

I noticed User:98.207.152.31 edited this page a few weeks ago with regards to penalty shootouts in two-legged draws. However, he did not add a source, and rather left the current one which contradicted him and agreed with what was there. So, I have reinserted the original content and left a message on his talk page. If anyone has a source saying he's right, insert it. Smartyllama (talk) 21:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

September ranking updated[edit]

You may have noticed FIFA have updated the September ranking (i.e. they have published a new ranking this week - one a bit different from the one they've published on Sep 21).

The explanation is here.

I think this should be somehow included in the article, but feel free to do as you see fit. I don't want to make an edit and then to have someone remove the content because "blog not a RS for blogger's claim of his own influence" :)

Edgar (talk) 09:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Merging cells[edit]

There have now been at least three (and maybe more) occasions when users have merged multiple cells indicating the progressions of multiple teams as one. See here for a prediction of the probable rankings in December. Let's suppose this holds true. How would we then like to have our table on 21 December:

This way?
Rankings
Rank Change Team Points
1 Steady  Spain 1564
2 Steady  Netherlands 1365
3 Steady  Germany 1345
4 Steady  Uruguay 1309
5 Steady  England 1173
6 Steady  Brazil 1143
7 Steady  Portugal 1100
8 Steady  Croatia 1091
9 Steady  Italy 1082
10 Steady  Argentina 1067
11 Steady  Denmark 1035
12 Steady  Russia 971
13 Steady  Chile 970
14 Steady  Greece 964
15 Steady  France 915
16 Steady  Ivory Coast 912
17 Steady   Switzerland 898
18 Steady  Sweden 891
19 Steady  Japan 884
20 Increase 3  Bosnia and Herzegovina 867
21 Decrease 1  Mexico 864
22 Decrease 1  Republic of Ireland 851
23 Decrease 1  Australia 838
24 Steady  Paraguay 795
25 Steady  Norway 788
Or this way?
Rankings
Rank Change Team Points
1
Steady
 Spain 1564
2  Netherlands 1365
3  Germany 1345
4  Uruguay 1309
5  England 1173
6  Brazil 1143
7  Portugal 1100
8  Croatia 1091
9  Italy 1082
10  Argentina 1067
11  Denmark 1035
12  Russia 971
13  Chile 970
14  Greece 964
15  France 915
16  Ivory Coast 912
17   Switzerland 898
18  Sweden 891
19  Japan 884
20 Increase 3  Bosnia and Herzegovina 867
21
Decrease 1
 Mexico 864
22  Republic of Ireland 851
23  Australia 838
24
Steady
 Paraguay 795
25  Norway 788

This is sort of an extreme case, because in most months teams play games fairly often and tend to move up and down the rankings quite irregularly, and thus few or no cells can possibly be merged. In my view the practice of merging is: (1) not generally applied for such purposes, both on Wikipedia and off; (2) less intuitive; (3) not contributory to understanding; (4) especially inappropriate when the merging affects just a few cells. I'm reverting the edit for now, and I'm anticipating comments by other users. --Theurgist (talk) 03:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm not that keen on drawing undue levels of attention to minor fluctuations (consider the most recent update: Brazilian football has not suffered any great disaster, but European teams have just had a series of high value matches), and the arrows are garish and ugly. But if they are wanted (and they were introduced without any discussion), then they should be as per the first example above. Kevin McE (talk) 17:32, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Updates on nft articles[edit]

Recently editors have started adding movement data to the team articles when updating these stats each month. I would suggest that minor month to month changes are unlikely to be very notable, but when there is no movement, the reader is confronted with a meaningless turquoise coloured bar. Readers should not be left to guess what on earth such a thing can mean. I suggest that this extra detail on the updates should be discontinued. Kevin McE (talk) 16:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I support this proposal. --John (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
If suitable alt text or "hover over" text is provided, then these symbols are just fine. They're are used ubiquitously in business articles to demonstrate an increase or decrease in positioning, likewise in tennis articles on weekly basis when ATP change their rankings. It's far from confusing, but if it is then let's use the tools we have to make it less confusing. I've already asked User:RexxS (who has a clue about ACCESS, which, while not directly pertinent, is useful here) to comment, and in the meantime I don't understand why one user should just wholesale remove all these templates when they actually provide factual information to the general reader. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone help?[edit]

It usually seems to fall to me to update the Template:FIFA World Ranking leaders displayed on this page each month. This month, although I did nothing other than change the date of the end of the chart as usual, it has refused to display the Spain label at the top of the chart. Has the template reached some sort of maximum length? Kevin McE (talk) 16:47, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

I tested some till dates in preview and the only dates where Spain disappeared were 08/08/2012 and 09/08/2012. I don't know whether they hit some boundary issue in the timeline extension or what but the date is not displayed anyway so I suggest to just change it. PrimeHunter (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm glad it's not just me. Thanks for looking. I've displayed it until 7th Aug: the percentage inaccuracy is negligible. I'll flag it up at the pump, and see what happens next month. Kevin McE (talk) 20:41, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean. If you are referring to the Spanish flag icon. It's being displayed already.--JOJ Hutton 00:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
No: it was a glitch in the timeline specific to a couple of dates last month: the top occurrence of Spain's name wouldn't display, compare the link above to the timeline as on the article now. We were able to evade the issue with a marginally inaccurate date last month, and this month it has not arisen. Don't think we ever got to the cause. Kevin McE (talk) 00:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Number of entries in the ranking table displayed here[edit]

According to current discussion at WT:FOOTY, a list of the top 20 can confidently be assumed to be within allowances if FIFA is likely to be protective of copyright. The table has had headers at various times claiming that having more than 30, and later 25, teams could cause copyright difficulties, although whether any specialist legal knowledge was behind that advice is unclear. At least 20, 25 and 30 have the advantage of being multiples of the number of digits most of us have on each hand: an editor this morning is attempting to add a 26th, which seems a rather random inclusion: the "top 26" is rareley, if ever, sougt after data. I reverted, but in apparent ignorance of, or indifference to, the principles of BRD, he continued.

Suggest reducing to the legally confident top 20: if the upshot of discussion here and at WT:FOOTY is that there should be more than 25/30 on the list, then it seems evident that a full list will be a separate article from this one that deals with the nature and history of the rankings. Kevin McE (talk) 11:43, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

20 sounds good to me. --Dweller (talk) 11:56, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Definitely no more than 10% in a snapshot, which equates to 20. If we want a full table that's fine by me, and it should be advertised via a hatnote at the very top of the article, but it shouldn't be bolted onto the side of the article. —WFC— 12:23, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Map of top 25 countries in FIFA[edit]

Apologies for the belated notice on this page. Please visit the discussion here. --Dweller (talk) 13:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Ranking Calculations[edit]

This article seems inaccurate when showing how the ranking points are achieved for each match. According to the FIFA website, there is no dividing by 100 in any of the ranking calculations. Besides, when multiplied by 100 later in the formula given by whoever wrote this article, it would cancel out anyway. Just thought this should be corrected. See: http://www.fifa.com/worldranking/procedureandschedule/menprocedure/index.html

65.51.94.15 (talk) 18:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)Maverick

Change of page title in order?[edit]

As stated at the begining of this article, it is about Men's teams ranking only. Shouldn't the title reflect that? I would expect a page titled "FIFA World Rankings" to present all of the national teams rankings offered by the FIFA, with links to each of them, including FIFA Women's World Rankings and possibly others (youth?). I am new on wikipedia, so please consider this as an honest question even if you think the answer is obvious :) Racaillou (talk) 13:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The simple reason that this article refers to the men's rankings is that this is the name that FIFA uses for its men's ranking system. FIFA do not refer to the men's rankings as the "FIFA Men's World Rankings", but they do use the name "FIFA Women's World Rankings". – PeeJay 14:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Well technically, they use "FIFA/Coca-Cola World Rankings". Is the sponsor's name dropped as per some WP policy on advertisement? On another note, the logo featured on fifa.com and on this page does say "Men's World Ranking" in its title, although it is undoubtly a less legitimate reference than the official name given by the FIFA.Racaillou (talk) 14:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
See also WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. There is far more interest in men's football than women's. At the time of writing, FIFA World Rankings got 50671 page views in the last 30 days.[1] FIFA Women's World Rankings got 3711.[2] PrimeHunter (talk) 15:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
Alright you convinced me. Thanks for having taken the time to answer these, PrimeHunter! Racaillou (talk) 13:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

update[edit]

There are some changes. [3] 89.172.222.147 (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Number of entries[edit]

The reasons for only having a snapshot of the top teams include copyright and maintainability. However, having gone through this page's feedback it is clear that a LOT of readers from a LOT of different countries come to this article expecting to find their country's ranking. In my opinion the current solution works well: we have the top 20, with a clearly marked link to the complete list. I'm posting this just in case anyone else has an idea on other ways we can help our readers find what they are looking for. —WFCFL wishlist 16:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Broken link[edit]

FYI, reference link #9 goes to a page that no longer exists 108.90.236.29 (talk) 04:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

strength of opposition = T ??[edit]

Why is strength of Opposition marked with a "T" in the FIFA rankings? I get that "C" is already used for confederation strength, but where does the T come from. I really hoped Wikipedia would have something about the code letters, because I can't find the logic. Unfortunately, the article doesn't seem to use the FIFA code letters at all (maybe because they are confusing?).

I'll make the radical guess that T stands for team strength, exactly as C stands for confederation strength. But given that this page does not use those abbreviations, it is irrelevant to this article. Kevin McE (talk) 11:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Monthly updates[edit]

Please note that monthly updates to the page are not complete unless the template:FIFA World Ranking leaders is also updated. It is easy enough, especially if the leadership does not change, simply change the end date in the Period field. If there is a change in leadership, copy and paste one of the existing lines and tweak contents as necessary. Kevin McE (talk) 11:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Spain points[edit]

I've calculated points of Spain and got some differences between my result and actual FIFA ranking points. There could be any other team but I cite the example of Spain because it's first in the June 2014 Ranking.

That's my calculations for Spain:

Date Opponent
(FIFA Ranking
on the match day)
Tournament/Friendly Result Match points
2011
09/02/2011  Colombia (50) Friendly 1:0 3*1*150*1 = 450
25/03/2011  Czech Republic (31) UEFA Euro 2012 qualification 2:1 3*2,5*169*1 = 1267,5
29/03/2011  Lithuania (54) UEFA Euro 2012 qualification 3:1 3*2,5*146*1 = 1095
04/06/2011  United States (22) Friendly 4:0 3*1*178*0,88 = 469,92
07/06/2011  Venezuela (68) Friendly 3:0 3*1*132*1 = 396
10/08/2011  Italy (8) Friendly 1:2 0*1*192*1 = 0
02/09/2011  Chile (11) Friendly 3:2 3*1*189*1 = 567
06/09/2011  Liechtenstein (119) UEFA Euro 2012 qualification 6:0 3*2,5*81*1 = 607,5
07/10/2011  Czech Republic (40) UEFA Euro 2012 qualification 2:0 3*2,5*160*1 = 1200
11/10/2011  Scotland (52) UEFA Euro 2012 qualification 3:1 3*2,5*148*1 = 1110
12/11/2011  England (7) Friendly 0:1 0*1*193*1 = 0
15/11/2011  Costa Rica (62) Friendly 2:2 1*1*138*0,88 = 121,44
2012
29/02/2012  Venezuela (46) Friendly 5:0 3*1*154*1 = 462
26/05/2012  Serbia (32) Friendly 2:0 3*1*168*1 = 504
30/05/2012  South Korea (31) Friendly 4:1 3*1*169*0,86 = 436,02
03/06/2012  China PR (64) Friendly 1:0 3*1*134*0,86 = 345,72
10/06/2012  Italy (12) UEFA Euro 2012 1:1 1*3*188*1 = 564
14/06/2012  Republic of Ireland (18) UEFA Euro 2012 4:0 3*3*182*1 = 1638
18/06/2012  Croatia (8) UEFA Euro 2012 1:0 3*3*192*1 = 1728
23/06/2012  France (14) UEFA Euro 2012 2:0 3*3*186*1 = 1674
27/06/2012  Portugal (10) UEFA Euro 2012 0:0 a.e.t. 4:2 PSO 3*2*190*1 = 1140
01/07/2012  Italy (12) UEFA Euro 2012 4:0 3*3*188*1 = 1692
15/08/2012  Puerto Rico (140) Friendly 2:1 3*1*60*0,88 = 158,4
07/09/2012  Saudi Arabia (104) Friendly 5:0 3*1*96*0,86 = 247,68
11/09/2012  Georgia (97) 2014 FIFA World Cup qualification 1:0 3*2,5*103*1 = 772,5
12/10/2012  Belarus (76) 2014 FIFA World Cup qualification 4:0 3*2,5*124*1 = 930
16/10/2012  France (15) 2014 FIFA World Cup qualification 1:1 3*2,5*185*1 = 462,5
14/11/2012  Panama (43) Friendly 5:1 3*1*157*0,88 = 414,48
2013
06/02/2013  Uruguay (16) Friendly 3:1 3*1*184*1 = 552
22/03/2013  Finland (85) 2014 FIFA World Cup qualification 1:1 1*2,5*115*1 = 287,5
26/03/2013  France (17) 2014 FIFA World Cup qualification 1:0 3*2,5*183*1 = 1372,5
08/06/2013  Haiti (63) Friendly 2:1 3*1*137*0,88 = 361,68
11/06/2013  Republic of Ireland (61) Friendly 2:0 3*1*139*1 = 417
16/06/2013  Uruguay (19) 2013 FIFA Confederations Cup 2:1 3*3*181*1 = 1629
20/06/2013  Tahiti (138) 2013 FIFA Confederations Cup 10:0 3*3*62*0,85 = 474,3
23/06/2013  Nigeria (31) 2013 FIFA Confederations Cup 3:0 3*3*169*0,86 = 1308,06
27/06/2013  Italy (8) 2013 FIFA Confederations Cup 0:0 a.e.t. 7:6 PSO 2*3*192*1 = 1152
30/06/2013  Brazil (22) 2013 FIFA Confederations Cup 0:3 0*3*178*1 = 0
14/08/2013  Ecuador (17) Friendly 2:0 3*1*183*1 = 549
06/09/2013  Finland (65) 2014 FIFA World Cup qualification 2:0 3*2,5*135*1 = 1012,5
10/09/2013  Chile (21) Friendly 2:2 1*1*179*1 = 179
11/10/2013  Belarus (80) 2014 FIFA World Cup qualification 2:1 3*2,5*120*1 = 900
15/10/2013  Georgia (97) 2014 FIFA World Cup qualification 2:0 3*2,5*168*1 = 772,5
19/11/2013  South Africa (61) Friendly 0:1 3*1*168*0,86 = 0
2014
05/03/2014  Italy (8) Friendly 1:0 3*1*192*1 = 576
30/05/2014  Bolivia (68) Friendly 2:0 3*1*132*1 = 396
07/06/2014  El Salvador (68) Friendly 2:0 3*1*132*0,88 = 348,48
13/06/2014  Netherlands (15) 2014 FIFA World Cup 1:5 3*4*185*1 = 0
18/06/2014  Chile (14) 2014 FIFA World Cup 0:2 3*4*186*1 = 0
23/06/2014  Australia (62) 2014 FIFA World Cup 3:0 3*4*138*0,86 = 1424,16
Year Average Weight Avg. weight
2011 596,99 20% 119,4
2012 823,08 30% 246,92
2013 685,44 50% 342,72
2014 457,44 100% 457,44
Total: 1166,48

And now what is on the FIFA website:

Year Average Weight Avg. weight
2011 1094 20% 218,8
2012 485,13 30% 145,54
2013 912,48 50% 456,24
2014 308,42 100% 308,42
Total: 1229

And points for the last 5 matches:

Date Opponent
(FIFA Ranking
on the match day)
Tournament/Friendly Result Match points
30/05/2014  Bolivia (68) Friendly 2:0 3*1*132*1 = 396
07/06/2014  El Salvador (68) Friendly 2:0 3*1*132*0.94 = 372,24
13/06/2014  Netherlands (15) 2014 FIFA World Cup 1:5 3*4*185*1 = 0
18/06/2014  Chile (14) 2014 FIFA World Cup 0:2 3*4*186*1 = 0
23/06/2014  Australia (62) 2014 FIFA World Cup 3:0 3*4*138*0,93= 1540,08

It's said that values for AFC and CONCACAF are 0,86 and 0,88 on the page FIFA/Coca-Cola World Ranking Procedure, respectively. But form the calculation on the FIFA website it follows that values for AFC and CONCACAF are 0,93 and 0,94, respectively.

I would be very grateful if somebody could tell where's my mistake :) Andrey Tsyganov (talk) 03:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect, your mistake was trying to calculate these figures at all. The only figures that matter are FIFA's, and it's not up to us to question them. – PeeJay 07:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
It's the average of the confederation weightings for the teams involved in the match. Thus for a UEFA vs. CONCACAF match it's (1 + 0.88)/2 = 0.94.--Edgar (talk) 07:16, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Time spent at #1[edit]

Shouldn't there be a table with the time spent by teams at #1? Nergaal (talk) 20:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I believe this would be a good edition and more clearer than the image placed to the right. Xenomorph1984 (talk) 18:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Team of the Year[edit]

This source differentiates between Team of the Year and First on FIFA Ranking, but this article does not. Could this be clarified? – Editør (talk) 18:45, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on FIFA World Rankings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Comparison of Elo and FIFA ranking[edit]

As of July 14th, the Criticism section of the article contains a table with discrepancies between FIFA and Elo ranking as evidence that the FIFA ranking discriminates against certain confederations. While I agree in principle that the regional-strength factor is discriminatory, the table is inadequate for several reasons: (i) it compares FIFA data before the recent Copa America and Euro with Elo data from after those tournament (e.g., the ranks for USA and Russia were almost equivalent before); (ii) notable exceptions in the other direction are simply ignored (France 17th in FIFA, 4th in Elo, Algeria 32nd in FIFA, 47th in Elo); (iii) the table is unsystematic and reeks of original research. In my humble opinion, the table ought to be removed, it is enough to say that the regional-strength factor causes different teams to obtain different points for the same performances. -- 138.231.127.2 (talk) 00:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on FIFA World Rankings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:10, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on FIFA World Rankings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on FIFA World Rankings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


There should be a section/table on number 1 teams[edit]

Like there is at World_Football_Elo_Ratings#List_of_number_one_teams. 188.27.39.222 (talk) 21:32, 14 October 2017 (UTC)